SPL. LEAVE PETITION No. 2788 of 1973 · Supreme Court of India
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
KRISHNA IYER, J. Mr. Daphtary, learned counsel for the petition ers, has argued at length all the points which were urged at the ear lier stage when we refused special leave thus making out that a review proceeding virtualLy amounts to re-hearing. May be, we were not right in refusing special leave in the first round; but, once an order has been passed by this Court, a review thereof must be subject to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly entertained. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repeti tion, through different counsel, qt old and over-ruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the ratio_nale behind the insistence of counsel's certificate which should· not be a routine affair or a habitual step. It is neither fairness to the court which decided nor ·awareness of the precious public time lost what with a huge for counsel back-log of dockets waitili1g in the queue for disposal, to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and fight over aga.in the same battle which has been fought and lost. The Bench 934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19751 3 s.c.R. and the Bar, we are sure, are jointly concerned in the conservation of judicial time for maximum use. We regret to say that "this case is typical of the upfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeat perfonn ance with the review label as passport. Nothing which we did not hear then has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward. May be, as counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special leave was capable of a different course. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality. · A B We dismiss the petition unhesitatingly, but wi.th these observations, hopefully. · V.M.K. Review petition dismissed . ..
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.